Smaller C compiler (Announce)

It's probably time. OTOH, they write that they too are now abusing undefined behavior, e.g. signed integer overflows. Seems like they want to be as pseudo-effective as gcc and clang. I wonder how many teams are affected by that and how many have simply decided to disable the "helpful" feature instead of fixing the code. And some code has changed little since Windows 3.xx. Fun! :)

> I mention this only because they mention fuzz testing with tools like> Csmith, C-Reduce, Opt-fuzz, etc.> > So maybe those tools could help you, too?

I know of the first two and it looks like the last one doesn't generate C code. Anyhow, I know most of the issues and I do have a bunch of tests (written by myself, borrowed or generated somewhat similarly to Csmith). The project has accumulated six issues on github in the past three years, of which only one was a bug (in the linker) and the rest were either questions or known/documented issues. There's one build issue on MacOS, the only open issue today. So, either nobody's using the project, or there aren't that many problems in it if people aren't reporting them. So, it looks like I should be OK w.r.t. bugs.

What I really (still!) need is a preprocessor. I like a lot the one from Plan9/LCC because it's complete, proven, small and even compiles as-is (the LCC variant) with Smaller C. I do not like its license, however. Others are either big or bad (rather incomplete, buggy, using functions that aren't in the C standard).